Francisco Alberto Ramirez- Ferrufino v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ALBERTO RAMIREZ-
FERRUFINO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73632
Agency No. A094-176-574
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Alberto Ramirez-Ferrufino petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, and
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act (NACARA). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
1. Ramirez-Ferrufino concedes that he is ineligible for asylum, withholding
of removal, and NACARA cancellation of removal under the persecutor bar if the
adverse credibility finding is proper. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(i),
1231(b)(3)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(a). Substantial evidence supports the adverse
credibility determination. See Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.
2010) (“Credibility determination are reviewed under the substantial evidence
standard.”). “The inconsistencies in [petitioner]’s story are not minor; rather, they
go to the heart of [his] asylum application” and the applicability of the persecutor
bar. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000). Though the IJ improperly
applied the REAL ID Act to Ramirez-Ferrufino’s pre-May 11, 2005 application,
this error was rendered harmless by the BIA’s “application of the correct legal
standard.” Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ghaly v.
INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)).
2. Ramirez-Ferrufino argues that the BIA erred by affirming the denial of
his request for relief under the CAT. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that he failed to meet his burden of showing that he will likely be
tortured in El Salvador “by or at the instigation of or with the consent or

-- 2 of 3 --

3
acquiescence of a public official” because of his former military membership. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also Owino v. Holder, 771 F.3d 527, 531 (9th Cir.
2014) (“Denial of CAT relief is reviewed for substantial evidence[.]”).
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --